Posted on 11/27/2007 9:44:04 AM PST by goldstategop
t's one thing for a government to use its police powers to take a property to make way for a truly public project, such as a freeway, but quite another for it to bulldoze neighborhoods because a developer is coveting the property. The League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association, whose members benefit by the current lax standards for eminent domain, funded a campaign in November 2006 to stop Proposition 90, a statewide initiative that would have banned eminent domain for economic development and forced cities to pay compensation for "regulatory takings."
Fortunately, supporters of a more traditional, constitutional view of private property are back again with the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act. Its backers earlier this month turned in more than 1 million signatures to the California Secretary of State, which must certify 694,354 valid signatures to secure it a spot on the June 2008 ballot. The measure is similar to Prop. 90, but it doesn't include any restrictions on regulatory takings. The most controversial provision is one that stops the government from setting "the price at which property owners sell or lease their property." In a free society, that shouldn't be controversial at all. The measure would not end current rent-control statutes, but would simply allow property owners to set their rents at the market rate once a vacancy opens up
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Imagine that.
A ballot measure to enforce something that’s explicitly mentioned in The Constitution.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I agree, but the fact that clearly written amendments (with the supportive writings to back them up) have been so grossly mis-interpreted is still dismaying.
Nonsense. This measure is entirely coincident with Kelo because the decision put the control of eminent domain in the hands of the States, which are now free to institute measures MORE protective of property rights than the Fifth Amendment. That's Federalism in action. It's why we have the Tenth Amendment. By contrast, putting the Federal government in charge of protecting your property rights would preclude any chance to institute protection from regulatory takings.
The Kelo taking was a travesty, but it was up to the people of Connecticut to fix it. They didn't. That's their choice.
The Constitution was written to restrain the Federal government, not the States. Kelo was in that respect correctly decided, whether the case was a travesty or not. The choice in the decision was whether to incorporate the Fifth Amendment under the 14th. Frankly, there are a lot of States that now have BETTER protection of property rights than the Fifth Amendment thanks to Kelo.
See the link in the post above.
But the takings clause in the US Constitution was never intended to restrict the the actions of the states, it was intended to restrict the actions of the federal government. It only applied to the states after the 14th amendment was passed. What Kelo did was to weaken the constitutional protections against the federal government's takings and hence the extension of those protections under the 14th amendment. Congress needs to reign in the power of the federal government to abuse eminent domain.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
But unfortunately a statute can be replaced by another statute. Kelo lowered the level of protection from constitutional to whatever can pass through the elected political branches over government.
The worst “taking” in California history took place a century ago when the state government seized all of the land patents held at the various County Recorders/Clerk offices. Now, with very rare exceptions (that being people who wisely kept their land patents or those rare few with alluvial title) no one in California actually “owns” their land. They have an “abstract of title” which means it looks like a title, but isn’t a title. The state holds title to your land. Consequently, this eminent domain measure may end being ruled irrelevant by a State court that observes the fact that the State is the actual owner of almost all land in California as the State holds almost all of the land patents.
I understand this measure would ban rent control on real estate. If so, the liberals and the MSM will fight it tooth and nail.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.